Our world today is a hodgepodge of individual ideas, thoughts, and philosophies. But it wasn't until the mid-19th century that people began to focus on individualism. Before, if you were an anomaly, you were "dangerous" and thus disliked by the community. One of the leading persons who changed this old ideology into one embracing unconformity was Ralph Waldo Emerson. He preached that "great soul[s]" embrace inconsistency. But is that all there is to having a "great soul"? Being a rebel? Sure, individualism is necessary to some extent, but a society requires consistency and docility in order to function properly. Unfortunately, Emerson seems to have rejected this dangerous aspect of a purely individualistic doctrine. Al-Qaeda, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, and myself exemplify how acquiescence is crucial in being a "person" within "persons."

Emerson was a dreamer - a nonconformist who only saw his cup of philosophy, half-full. He dismissed the negative side effects that individualism might bring to his society. Did it ever cross his mind that if everyone embraced him or herself only and ignored the opinions of a community, there wouldn't exist a community to begin with? Take the recent bombings in France, for example. The terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, bombed the offices of "Charlie Hebdo", because the newspaper featured a satirical drawing of Islamic religion. What was the problem here, you might ask. The media has antagonized the bombers, but I ask you to be objective. This is a problem that arose from two parties arguing for their own individualism. Al-Qaeda argued for their beliefs to be respected and not mocked by mass media; the newspaper for their right to publish anything freely. Was their individualism more important than the lives of 62 people? In order to prevent future disgrace to humanity, we need to embrace and listen to other people's thoughts and stances before grabbing weapons to fend ourselves. Would Emerson consider the bombers as "great soul[s]" for resisting to conform to societal negative views on them? I certainly think not. Emerson just simply disregarded that the emptiness of a cup should've been taken as seriously as the water that filled his philosophy.

If Emerson were a dreamer of individualism in the homo sapiens genus, then Jonathan Livingston would be an equivalent in the bird species. In the book, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", Jonathan refuses to "waste" his life, "merely" flying to hunt. In fact, he often skipped meals to explore the aesthetic techniques of flying. Swirled, he did. Dived, he did. Spun, he conquered. But hunt? No, that was not going to make him a "great soul." He went against the basic rules of life and decided that flying for fun was more important than eating or spending time with his flock. This continuation of Jonathan's peculiar affinity eventually led to the expulsion from his entire flock, followed by disownment from his own family. Though Jonathan may have pursued his "passion", it wasn't worth losing his family. He prioritized his individuality over following one simple accepted rule - surviving. At this point, I ask you, is it really foolish to be consistent with established nature by society? Even if your life depended on it?

I, too, once was a complete "Emerson," a "Jonathan" at heart. I longed to present myself as who I was to society and did not quite understand why I had to follow stupid school rules. So when I first moved to a school in a new country and figured out I could not paint my nails, dye my hair, or wear jewelry, I didn't even blink twice about whether or not I should follow them. My answer in the split moment of supposed internal turmoil was, "these are part of my identity and I won't let some rules take that away from me." But that decision bore me the burden of being stared at all the time, a decision that made me the "outsider." I came to realize that these rules were set for people to follow because of the conservative culture in this new and unfamiliar country. An important lesson was learned; sometimes conforming to society means giving respect to it. And as it turned out, the choice in my attire proved to be a benign factor in keeping my individualism. I even gained the maturity to tone down my desires to respect a community's traditional rules, and this change of attitude became a part of my new identity. All in all, conformity was not a "foolish consistency" but upholding a different culture.

Acceptance to established rules is a pivotal part of living amongst other people. Al-Qaeda, Jonathan, and myself are evidence to the claim that Emerson was too quick to say individualism was more important than acquiescence. Instead of just voicing his rigid view, Emerson should have considered the problem at hand, objectively as well. Because at times, conformity means humanity, survival, and respect. We, as a part of a bigger group, should not depreciate the necessity of it. Individualism may make you a "great soul" but not a very good one at that, if you only conform to yourself.